The woman in this video must be found and brought to justice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGgN1HlkgVw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGgN1HlkgVw&feature=player_embedded
I don't post here much anymore, but we must do justice
- Thread starter Deadpoet
- Start date
"Dear Friends,
Thank you again for the overwhelming support and concern for “Butters” which we share.
To help you understand SPCA’s constraints in taking direct action, the case is now with the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) who, under Singapore law, have the powers to prosecute under the Animals and Birds Act a...nd seize the dog from the owner if deemed necessary. The SPCA does not have enforcement powers.
We have however appealed to the AVA to take firm action against the woman in the video under section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act for repeatedly terrorizing the dog. Animals and Birds Act, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Section 42 – (1)(a) states that any person who “cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats.. or terrifies any animal.. shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both”.
The SPCA has written to AVA requesting an update and are still awaiting a response. Please join the SPCA in voicing your concern to the AVA at ava_cawc@ava.gov.sg
Thank you for your support and we hope to see justice done for “Butters” soon."
from SPCA singapore.
Thank you again for the overwhelming support and concern for “Butters” which we share.
To help you understand SPCA’s constraints in taking direct action, the case is now with the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) who, under Singapore law, have the powers to prosecute under the Animals and Birds Act a...nd seize the dog from the owner if deemed necessary. The SPCA does not have enforcement powers.
We have however appealed to the AVA to take firm action against the woman in the video under section 42 of the Animals and Birds Act for repeatedly terrorizing the dog. Animals and Birds Act, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Section 42 – (1)(a) states that any person who “cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats.. or terrifies any animal.. shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both”.
The SPCA has written to AVA requesting an update and are still awaiting a response. Please join the SPCA in voicing your concern to the AVA at ava_cawc@ava.gov.sg
Thank you for your support and we hope to see justice done for “Butters” soon."
from SPCA singapore.
Although SPCA says it has no enforcement powers, perhaps it should not pass the buck to AVA.
SPCA is specifically for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals and this is what the case is all about. SPCA should pursue the matter and not wash hands.
If imprisonment is involved, then likewise it will have to be passed to the jurisdiction of another authority that is able to impose imprisonment.
Even if the lady is fined $10,000. She pays up. Then she may say so what? She got money to pay the fine. It is like some luxury car owners purposely parking in places where they can be fined because they are boasting that they can afford to pay the fine.
Actually the one who punishes is not SPCA or AVA.
It is the public. If the public ostracises her, tell the whole world who she is, where she lives and works.
People like that probably do not love pets.
They keep pets as a "lifestyle trophy" to show off in public.
These are probably the same people who dump pets after the pets grow old and are no longer cute.
In fact more than one person know who she is.
So it means many neighbours and people who live in her general area know exactly who she is. Where she lives. If she goes to market people recognise her.
Because her face is shown in the video, if she is working, her colleagues know who she is.
The dog is a particular breed. Now SPCA even knows its name.
Dogs do not fall out from the sky.
Pet shops have to sell them.
People have to buy them from the pet shops.
There is a transaction record.
Pet shop owner who sold the dog knows exactly who she is. Or who they sold the dog to.
Technologically it is easy to trace the person who uploaded the video to Youtube. Only a matter of whether the authorities want to trace or not.
This episode reveals the foolishness of people who upload videos of such acts to Youtube for 1 minute's fame. Now the man who uploaded the video knows how much trouble they can get into. It shows the underlying desperation for publicity and a naivete about how dangerous it is to post such videos online.
SPCA is specifically for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals and this is what the case is all about. SPCA should pursue the matter and not wash hands.
If imprisonment is involved, then likewise it will have to be passed to the jurisdiction of another authority that is able to impose imprisonment.
Even if the lady is fined $10,000. She pays up. Then she may say so what? She got money to pay the fine. It is like some luxury car owners purposely parking in places where they can be fined because they are boasting that they can afford to pay the fine.
Actually the one who punishes is not SPCA or AVA.
It is the public. If the public ostracises her, tell the whole world who she is, where she lives and works.
People like that probably do not love pets.
They keep pets as a "lifestyle trophy" to show off in public.
These are probably the same people who dump pets after the pets grow old and are no longer cute.
In fact more than one person know who she is.
So it means many neighbours and people who live in her general area know exactly who she is. Where she lives. If she goes to market people recognise her.
Because her face is shown in the video, if she is working, her colleagues know who she is.
The dog is a particular breed. Now SPCA even knows its name.
Dogs do not fall out from the sky.
Pet shops have to sell them.
People have to buy them from the pet shops.
There is a transaction record.
Pet shop owner who sold the dog knows exactly who she is. Or who they sold the dog to.
Technologically it is easy to trace the person who uploaded the video to Youtube. Only a matter of whether the authorities want to trace or not.
This episode reveals the foolishness of people who upload videos of such acts to Youtube for 1 minute's fame. Now the man who uploaded the video knows how much trouble they can get into. It shows the underlying desperation for publicity and a naivete about how dangerous it is to post such videos online.
Last edited:
I wonder if parents will be prosecuted as well if they cane their children. :think:
That's the normal way how parents bring up their kids in the past. So now, it's considered "cruelty"? :bsmilie:
And the disciplinary master in my secondary school days will be punished by law for caning students, if he were to do the same thing today?
That's the normal way how parents bring up their kids in the past. So now, it's considered "cruelty"? :bsmilie:
And the disciplinary master in my secondary school days will be punished by law for caning students, if he were to do the same thing today?
Last edited:
yes, its called child abuse ..... I dont think its normal to whack until it becomes physically dangerous
There will always be a grey area between a slight slap on the wrist to full force violence
Last edited:
Yes, but nowadays touch a bit only, KPKB (no puns intended) already
Kids these days can be quite havoc and nothing much teachers can do about it. At least that's what I hear from my teacher friends.:thumbsd:
The disciplinary master delivered the strokes of cane in front of the whole school. The strokes on the buttock(male) were in moderate force; We could hear the sound of the impact. For girls, it will be caning on the palm of the hand, in front of everybody.
And parents caning their kids, I don't think they will cane lightly as they are in an emotional mood at that time. INjuries are mostly red marks from the canes, it will recover after a week or 2.
So all these are considered cruelty?
If this is cruelty, then I consider prisoners who get the "Caning" in prison to be extreme cruelty. How come nobody complain about that? One is human and the other an animal.(of course, animal is also a living being) :think:
And parents caning their kids, I don't think they will cane lightly as they are in an emotional mood at that time. INjuries are mostly red marks from the canes, it will recover after a week or 2.
So all these are considered cruelty?
If this is cruelty, then I consider prisoners who get the "Caning" in prison to be extreme cruelty. How come nobody complain about that? One is human and the other an animal.(of course, animal is also a living being) :think:
It's the husband. He was trying to stop the lady but couldn't so he decided to record and put on youtube
Similar threads
